Re: Re[2]: Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?

I'm fine to move it to 1.3.4

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> The addition of "other" in front of properties for Status Changes is a
> friendly editorial change from my perspective, but don't want to get
> distracted by the important question of whether we have all the new SCs in
> the right guidelines!
>
> The other items Steve and I agreed on:
>
>    - move 'Animation from Interactions' out of Operable>Enough Time. See
>    comments on possible options.
>    - move 'Character Key Shortcuts' to Operable>Keyboard Accessible
>       - move 'Concurrent Input Mechanisms'  out of Operable>Pointer
>       Accessible.
>       -
>
> Steve also did not disagree with me about:
>
>    - move 'Reflow' and 'Text Spacing' from Perceivable>Distinguishable to
>    Perceivable>Adaptable
>
> -
> A key part of my analysis was that a new Guideline called something like
> Operable > Additional Modalities could contain a number of orphans. Given
> the unresolved discussion on the Sensors guidelines language, this is one
> possible path to take for it as well.
>
>    -
>
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
>  V8T 5C3
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
> From:        "Joshue O Connor - InterAccess" <josh@interaccess.ie>
> To:        "Michael Gower" <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, "Andrew
> Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Cc:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        2018-01-12 12:00 PM
> Subject:        Re[2]: Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable
> guideline?
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Like it, one suggestion..While largely editorial - I think it is clearer.
>
> "In content implemented using markup languages, status messages can be
> programmatically determined through role or other properties so the
> messages can be presented to the user by assistive technologies without
> receiving focus."
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Michael Gower" <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com*
> <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>
> To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>
> Cc: "WCAG" <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Sent: 12/01/2018 19:02:50
> Subject: Re: Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?
>
> I had a whole list of such suggestions back in early December, which Steve
> responded to. Pasting here for reference...
>
> RE: SC classificationsMichael Gower to: Repsher, Stephen J 2017-12-08
> 07:55 AM
> Cc: WCAG
> From: "Michael Gower" <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com*
> <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>
> To: "Repsher, Stephen J" <*stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com*
> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
> Cc: WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
>
>
> Thanks, Steve. I think your comments can stand on their own, but I wanted
> to respond to this one:
>
> >*If this is moved, then so should 1.4.4.*
>
> We cannot touch any existing 2.0 SCs in this exercise. I believe that was
> demonstrated when David proposed to move a couple of 2.0 AAA SCs to create
> a more consistent numbering and classification in 2.1. That said, we
> shouldn't perpetuate potentially poor historical classifications with new
> decisions in this round. If we think a new SC fits better somewhere, it
> should go there.
>
> I think it is likely there will end up being a 2.2, and to the degree that
> we can keep future modalities and developments in mind, I think we should
> try to make our classification as aligned with the POUR principles as
> possible in this round, regardless of curiosities in 2.0.
>
>
> From:        "Repsher, Stephen J" <*stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com*
> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
> To:        Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com*
> <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>, WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> >
> Date:        2017-12-07 10:19 AM
> Subject:        RE: SC classifications
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Thanks, Mike.  Good analysis.  I put comments where I agree or disagree
> below.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:*Michael Gower [*mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com*
> <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 07, 2017 11:00 AM
> *To:* WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> *Subject:* SC classifications
>
>
>
> Assuming the Dec 7 version of this
> *https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__w3c.github.io_wcag21_guidelines_&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=LsubWLi77Ps2I4ozl8IIrEWPNnvGqbYUvZKIHEOX4ls&s=b-6lz_0O5lPdbw98CZy0hFmQTjNq_Ioa64aNh-Oc9Xs&e=>is
> the correct and most up to date list, I'd like to get some clarity on why
> things have been classified as they are, and if/when we can address
> possible changes. To the degree that we can normalize the criteria within
> the POUR model, we should. (And I get that the model itself does not result
> in clear delineation.)
>
> Identify Common Purpose - under Perceivable>Adaptable. I get the SC can be
> theoretically used to do adaptation, but it doesn't really fit with what is
> covered by the webaim *Transformability *
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__webaim.org_articles_pour_perceivable&d=DwMFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=rIrBWgUBNWnwym9hiugHYfacotAbvfTnviL1q9Hicek&s=mE0tBgb0mJwrRVbpQEmFEmciGz68ZaeaLtizrB4g6ag&e=>topic.
> Surely its primary purpose is *Understandable*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__webaim.org_articles_pour_understandable&d=DwMFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=rIrBWgUBNWnwym9hiugHYfacotAbvfTnviL1q9Hicek&s=RTy2Kd_gfBqCPG-s5eEfKvPUlb7SVkByV4VyuIn5NTk&e=>.
> Again, realizing this is webaim material not w3c, the topics on meaning
> seem perfectly aligned. Not a great fit in a subcategory... Readable, isn't
> horrible. Input Assistance is bang on for the input purposes.
>
> *[Steve] I disagree and think Adaptable is a good fit.  The techniques
> here such as microdata or other attributes are not part of the default
> presentation.  Rather, they exist so a user can transform the content to
> familiarities that work for them.  WebAIM’s article is focused on physical
> disabilities, but the addition of this SC is an appropriate application for
> the cognitive space.*
>
>
>
> Contextual Information - also under Perceivable>Adaptable. Same argument
> as Identify Common Purpose. Should be Understandable
>
> Reflow - under Perceivable>Distinguishable. Seems to make more sense under
> Perceivable>Adaptable. The very title of the SC is something of an argument
> for this. I understand this is more of a subtle difference, but taking in
> all the criteria in these two subcategories, it seems to make more sense.
>
> *[Steve] If this is moved, then so should 1.4.4.  Same grayness applies as
> with Text Spacing.*
>
>
>
> Text spacing - also under Perceivable>Distinguishable. Same argument as
> Reflow. The SC is about adapting the text. Seems to meet the short
> description of Adaptable: "presented in different ways (for example
> simpler layout) without losing information or structure."
>
> *[Steve] I could go either way on this (and it was discussed on the issue
> that resulted in renaming this SC from Adapting Text).  Guidelines 1.3 and
> 1.4 do not exist as black and white.*
>
>
>
> Content on Hover of Focus - also under Perceivable>Distinguishable. I get
> that the goal of this is to ensure everyone can take advantage of the
> content, but a dispassionate examination of the actual language of the SC
> suggests that it is dictating Operation. As a double-barrelled SC, it
> belongs under both Keyboard Accessible and Pointer Accessible. A pragmatic
> compromise may be to dump it under Navigable with some cross references or
> something.
>
> *[Steve] I disagree.  This is Primarily about making it easier (or
> possible) to see the additional content and whatever it may cover up
> because of lack of lack of consideration for magnified views, large
> pointers, etc.  That said, when the triggers or additional content have
> operable components, there is some principle overlap.*
>
>
>
> Accessible Authentication - under Operable>Enough time.  Definitely agree
> it belongs under Operable, but since there is no time factor in the SC, it
> is a loose fit. There isn't really anywhere better. It could be possibly
> addressed by altering 2.6 from Additional Sensor Inputs to something more
> generic like Additional Modalities.
>
> *[Steve] Agree it doesn’t fit.*
>
>
>
> Animation from Interactions - under Operable>Enough time. Originally this
> had some timing factors in it, so was an 'okay' fit. But I think it much
> more appropriately belongs under Operable>Seizures. I'd also advocate the
> "Seizures" category be reworded and broadened, but I guess that would be a
> 2.0 normative change and so is sacrosanct.
>
> *[Steve] Agree.*
>
>
>
> Character Key Shortcuts - under Operable>Navigable. I think this fits
> better under Operable>Keyboard Accessible. Yes, it is there because of
> voice control, but ultimately it's about an unambiguous keyboard
> affordance. If people buy into my Operable>Additional Modalities
> suggestion, it could also fit quite comfortably in there.
>
> *[Steve] Agree navigable is not a great fit as the shortcut doesn’t
> necessarily have anything to do with navigation or finding content.*
>
>
>
> Label in Name - under Operable>Navigable. Makes more sense under the
> proposed Operable>Additional Modalities suggestion. Can actually clarify
> intent, just by being located there, as otherwise very unclear from from SC
> language alone what the intent is.
>
> *[Steve] I disagree.  For a speech user, this is all about jumping to the
> control efficiently.  (For a low vision user, it has Understandable
> benefits, but that’s secondary).*
>
>
>
> Most Pointer SCs (Gestures, Cancellation, Target Size) - fine as is
> except...
>
> Concurrent Input Mechanims - under Operable>Pointer Accessible. Since this
> covers a whole lot more than pointer, it makes a lot more sense under
> Operable>Additional Modalities.
>
> *[Steve] Agree.*
>
>
>
> Status Changes - under Operable>Predictable. I think this actually makes
> more sense under Perceivable. Subcategory? Probably Distinguishable, or
> maybe Adaptable.
>
> *[Steve] Strongly agree.  This belongs under Adaptable as it is about the
> messages being transformed into audio or Braille at the appropriate time.*
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
>  V8T 5C3
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
> *gowerm@ca.ibm.com* <gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
>
>
> From:        Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> >
> To:        WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Date:        2018-01-12 10:30 AM
> Subject:        Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?
> ------------------------------
>
> Steve has a proposed change to move 3.2.6 (Could look like this:
> *http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/status-changes-to-new-guideline/guidelines/index.html#status-changes*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rawgit.com_w3c_wcag21_status-2Dchanges-2Dto-2Dnew-2Dguideline_guidelines_index.html-23status-2Dchanges&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=BgVlBw0-qEeFlo3fG57KHYgOiYXJFvv4YfNwMiY4m5s&s=NTO1bRo0BBSOyrbVbK6x-h9LksViqN1CPWLmkuV4DfM&e=>
> )
>
>
>
> What do people think?
>
>
>
> (my take is that it might also make sense at 4.1.3, but am not passionate
> about that).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> *akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>
> *http://twitter.com/awkawk*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_awkawk&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=BgVlBw0-qEeFlo3fG57KHYgOiYXJFvv4YfNwMiY4m5s&s=nuEgs4p6TMMjw6JACb3MRL0tPacxQ1mVepayISotw7Y&e=>
>
>
>